To Cai Hesen[1] and Others

(December 1, 1920)

Brother Hesen, Brother Zisheng[2], and to be forwarded to all society friends in France:

Having received your various letters, I am immensely gratified! The society[3] has a concrete plan, which can be said to have begun with the Montargis Conference[4] and these several letters from you two brothers. I have always held great hopes for the future of the society, and therefore I also have a few plans of my own. I have long wished to draft a plan and present it before the society friends for discussion. Now that I have received your letters, my plan need not be written. I only hope that our seventy-odd society

[1] Cai Hesen (1895–1931), also known as Cai Linbin, a native of Yongfeng Town, Xiangxiang, Hunan (now part of Shuangfeng County). In his early years, together with Mao Zedong and others, he initiated and organized the Xinmin Society. In 1919 he went to France on a work-study program and returned to China in 1921. He served as editor-in-chief of the Central Committee journal *The Guide Weekly*, head of the Central Propaganda Department, member of the Central Committee, and member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee. He died a martyr in Guangzhou in 1931.

[2] Zisheng, i.e., Xiao Zisheng (1894–1976), a native of Xiangxiang, Hunan, and one of the founders of the Xinmin Society. At the time he was in France on a work-study program. After returning to China in 1924, he served as a directing member of the Kuomintang Party Affairs in Beiping. After the split between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party in 1927, he held posts including Vice Minister of Agriculture and Mining in the Kuomintang government.

[3] The society refers to the Xinmin Society, a revolutionary organization initiated by Mao Zedong, Cai Hesen, Xiao Zisheng, and others, founded in Changsha, Hunan in April 1918. Mao Zedong was its de facto leader. The society’s original aim was “to renew learning, to temper character, and to improve the hearts and customs of the people,” later adopting “to transform China and the world” as its guiding principle. In 1920 some members joined the Socialist Youth League and participated in activities to establish the Communist Party in Hunan.

[4] The Montargis Conference refers to a meeting held in July 1920 in Montargis, France, by Xinmin Society members on work-study programs in France, including Cai Hesen, Xiang Jingyu, Li Weihan, and Cai Chang. The meeting proposed “to transform China and the world” as the society’s guiding principle.

friends will each give detailed and careful consideration to the plans in your letters, and then offer profound criticism, so as to decide either to approve, or to oppose, or to propose other plans and opinions beyond those in your letters. I often feel that for our individual development or the development of the society, there must always be a clear path. Without a clear path, each person merely advances blindly, and the society also advances blindly, with the result that, besides ruining each individual, it also ruins this promising society—would that not be a pity? Originally, before we had this society, we already had some plans. The very establishment of this society was the result of mutual discussion and study among a few people two years ago. After the society was established, a common consciousness quickly took shape, which greatly influenced the transformation of individual thought and the elevation of life. At the same time, there was considerable study of common life and common progress. However, because no concrete plan was put forward, and there was no publication to serve as an organ for public discussion, and because over the past two years society friends have dispersed in various directions, and members in Changsha have been unable to meet and discuss due to political obstacles, although there were some plans and opinions, they remained only stored in each person’s heart, or expressed by a few when meeting, or seen in each other’s letters through correspondence—in short, they existed only among a portion of the society friends. Now that you all have held the great Montargis assembly and decided upon a common proposition through discussion, and you two brothers, based on your own ideals and observations, have issued a kind of study, criticism, and decision, apart from the members in Changsha who will soon hold a meeting for common study, criticism, and decision, I shall first state my personal opinions on your letters as follows[1].

Now I will discuss them point by point.

(1) The question of the society’s guiding principle. What guiding principle shall our society adopt as our common goal? In Zisheng’s letter, describing the Montargis Conference’s guiding principle for the society’s progress, it is said: “Everyone decided that the guiding principle for the society’s affairs shall be to transform China and the world.” Taking “to transform China and the world” as the society’s guiding principle exactly accords with my usual proposition, and I anticipate it accords with the proposition of the majority of society friends.

[1] The original letter was written vertically from right to left; “如左” means “如下” (as follows).

From my contacts and observations, the majority of our society friends incline toward cosmopolitanism. Observe how the majority despise patriotism; how the majority despise seeking the private interests of one part or one nation while forgetting the welfare of all humanity; how the majority feel themselves to be members of humanity and are unwilling to be further subordinated senselessly to some meaningless nation, family, or religion as its slaves—from this it can be known. This cosmopolitanism is the doctrine of universal brotherhood, the doctrine of wishing oneself well and also wishing others well, which is also what is called socialism. All socialism is international and should not bear the coloration of patriotism. In his letter of August 13, Hesen said: “I intend to draft a clear proposal, emphasizing the two points of the dictatorship of the proletariat and international coloration. Because the more enlightened youth I have seen mostly carry a bit of the middle-class viewpoint and national coloration, and on these two points, a strict and correct proposition is indispensable.” Except for the point on the dictatorship of the proletariat, which I will discuss in the next section, the point on international coloration indeed now needs to be solemnly proclaimed. Although we who were born in this place called China, for the convenience of doing things, and because China, compared to other parts of the world, is more immature and corrupt and should be transformed first, naturally we should do our work in this place called China; but our sentiments must always be universal, and we must not love only this one place and not other places. That is one aspect. Furthermore, doing things is not necessarily confined to China. I believe there should certainly be people working in China, but even more so there should be people working in the world. For instance, helping Russia complete its social revolution; helping Korea achieve independence; helping the South Seas achieve independence; helping Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Qinghai achieve autonomy and self-determination—all these are very important. Below I discuss the question of method.

(2) The question of method. The goal—to transform China and the world—has been set. What follows is the question of method: what method shall we ultimately use to achieve the goal of “transforming China and the world”? In his letter, Hesen said: “I now clearly recognize socialism as a reflection of capitalism, its important mission being to break the capitalist economic system, and its method being the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Hesen also said: “I believe that in the present world anarchism cannot be practiced, because in the present world there clearly exist two antagonistic classes. To overthrow the dictatorship[1] of the propertied class, it cannot be suppressed without the dictatorship of the non-propertied class.

[1] Dikeduoduo is a transliteration of the English word “dictatorship.”

Russia is a clear proof. Therefore, regarding the future transformation of China, I believe the principles and methods of socialism are entirely applicable. ... I believe we must first organize a Communist Party, because it is the initiator, propagandist, vanguard, and combat department of the revolutionary movement.” According to Hesen’s opinion, he believes that Russian-style methods should be used to achieve the transformation of China and the world, and he approves of Marx’s methods. Zisheng, however, says: “The evolution of the world is infinite, and revolution is also infinite. We do not accept that the welfare of the majority can be exchanged for the sacrifice of a part. I advocate a moderate revolution, a revolution using education as its tool, a revolution seeking the welfare of the entire people. Trade unions and cooperatives should be the method for carrying out reforms. I rather disapprove of the Russian-style—Marxist-style—revolution as proper, and incline toward the anarchist—Proudhon[1]-style—new revolution, which is comparatively gentle and moderate; though slow, it is harmonious.” At the same time, Brother Li Hesheng[2] wrote a letter advocating the same as Zisheng. Li said: “Regarding social transformation, I do not approve of transformation in a sweeping manner. Using the method of division of labor and mutual assistance, transforming from within society

[1] Proudhon (1809–1865), French petty-bourgeois economist and sociologist, one of the founders of anarchism.

[2] Li Hesheng, i.e., Li Weihan, also known as Luo Mai. He joined the Xinmin Society in 1918, went to France on a work-study program in 1919, and in June 1922, together with Zhao Shiyan and Zhou Enlai, initiated and organized the Young Communist Party in France. In October, he returned to China on behalf of the Young Communist Party to arrange its affiliation with the Chinese Socialist Youth League. He joined the Chinese Communist Party the following year. The opinion mentioned in this letter, that Li Hesheng “fundamentally could not entirely approve of the Russian-style revolution,” was a view he held for a time while exploring the revolutionary path during his stay in France, which he soon changed. In 1979, in his article “Recalling the Xinmin Society,” he spoke of his ideological transformation in the latter half of 1920: “Around August to September, I had the opportunity to intensively read the *Communist Manifesto*, *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, *The State and Revolution*, *The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky*, *“Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder*, and several pamphlets on propagating the October Revolution, which Hesen had translated from French with a ‘domineering’ spirit. In addition, I had many long talks with Hesen, covering a wide range of topics, including the situation of the revolutionary struggle in Europe, the experience of the Russian October Revolution, the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, the nature and tasks of the Communist International, the rupture between the Third International and the Second International, and so on. Through reading and conversation, I deeply understood that only by taking the path of the October Revolution could we achieve the goal of ‘transforming China and the world.’”

I think is very good. A society’s illness has its own particular background; I very much doubt that one single prescription can cure the illnesses of all under heaven. Regarding the Russian-style revolution, I fundamentally have points I cannot entirely approve of.” Regarding the opinions of Zisheng and Hesheng (using peaceful means to seek the welfare of the whole), I approve of them in terms of truth, but in terms of fact, I consider them unachievable. Russell[1] in his speech in Changsha expressed ideas similar to those of Zisheng and Hesheng, advocating communism but opposing the dictatorship of labor and peasants, saying that educational methods should be used to awaken the propertied class, so as not to hinder freedom, provoke war, or cause revolutionary bloodshed. However, after Russell’s lecture, I had an extremely detailed debate with Yinbai, Lirong[2], and others. Regarding Russell’s proposition, I have two comments: “It makes sense in theory, but in fact it cannot be done.” The key point of the propositions of Russell, Zisheng, and Hesheng is “using educational methods.” But education requires, first, money; second, people; third, institutions. In the present world, money is entirely in the hands of capitalists; those who control education are all capitalists or the slaves of capitalists; the two most important educational institutions in the present world—schools and newspapers—are also entirely in the grasp of capitalists. In short, present-day education is a kind of capitalist education. Children are taught with capitalism, and when these children grow up, they in turn use capitalism to teach the next generation of children. The reason education falls into the hands of capitalists is that capitalists have “parliaments” to enact laws protecting capitalists and preventing the proletariat; they have “governments” to enforce these laws, actively carrying out what they protect and prohibiting what they forbid; they have “armies” and “police” to passively guarantee the comfort of capitalists and suppress the demands of the proletariat; they have “banks” as treasuries for the circulation of their wealth and goods; they have “factories” as organs for monopolizing their products. Thus, if the Communists do not seize political power, they cannot even rest securely under their hands, much less grasp the power of education? Thus, with capitalists long holding the power of education and vigorously promoting their capitalism, the Communist propaganda of the Communists finds its believers dwindling day by day.

[1] Russell (1872–1970), British philosopher and social activist. He came to China to lecture in 1920 and gave a speech in Changsha in October of the same year.

[2] Yinbai, i.e., Peng Huang, a member of the Xinmin Society. At the time, he was the accounting officer of the Hunan Russian Studies Association. Lirong, i.e., Yi Lirong, a member of the Xinmin Society. At the time, he was the manager of the Changsha Cultural Bookstore.

Therefore, I feel that the method of education is unworkable. I see the Russian-style revolution as a desperate expedient when all other paths have been exhausted and none can be traversed; it is not that there was a better method that was abandoned and not adopted, and only this terrifying method was chosen. That is the first layer of reasoning. The second layer: based on the principle of habituation in psychology and observations from human history, I feel that making capitalists believe in communism is an impossibility. Human life has a kind of habituation, a psychological force, just as an object on an incline must tend downward as a physical force. To prevent an object from tending downward, according to the principles of mechanics, a force equal to it must resist it. To change the human heart, a force equal in strength to this mental force must also resist it. Using the force of education to change it, since we cannot obtain all or a large part of the two educational institutions—schools and newspapers—even if we have eloquence, printed materials, or one or two schools and newspapers as tools for propaganda, it is just as Zhu Zi said: “Teaching is like supporting a drunken man; if you support him from the east, he falls to the west.” It is simply insufficient to move the minds of capitalists in the slightest; what hope is there of turning their hearts toward goodness? The above is from the psychological perspective. Looking at it from the historical perspective, human life is entirely an expansion of realistic desires. This realistic desire only moves in the direction of expansion, never in the direction of contraction. The small capitalist inevitably wants to become a big capitalist, and the big capitalist inevitably wants to become the biggest capitalist—this is a fixed psychology. Historically, all absolutists, or imperialists, or militarists, will never voluntarily desist unless others come to overthrow them. Napoleon I[1] proclaimed himself emperor and failed, then there was Napoleon III proclaiming himself emperor. Yuan Shikai[2] failed, yet there was still

[1] Napoleon I, i.e., Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821), French statesman and military leader, Emperor of the First French Empire and the Hundred Days.

[2] Yuan Shikai (1859–1916), a native of Xiangcheng, Henan, leader of the Beiyang warlords. After the 1911 Revolution, he usurped the position of Provisional President of the Republic of China and established the Beiyang warlord regime in Beijing, a joint dictatorship of the landlord and comprador classes. In December 1915 he declared the restoration of the monarchy, and in March 1916, under nationwide opposition, was forced to abolish it.

Duan Qirui[1]. Zhang Taiyan[2], in a speech in Changsha, urged everyone to read history, saying that the failures of Yuan, Duan, and others were all due to not reading history. I say that reading history is a matter of wisdom, while seeking to fulfill desires is a matter of impulse. Wisdom guiding impulse can only be effective within a certain range; once beyond that range, impulse will overwhelm wisdom and charge forward bravely, and it must encounter a force greater than the forward force of impulse before it can be beaten back. There are several common sayings: “A man’s heart does not die until he reaches the Yellow River,” “From this mountain, that mountain looks higher,” “The human heart is never satisfied; having gained Long, it looks to Shu”—all can prove this principle. From the above, looking at it psychologically and historically, it is evident that capitalism cannot be overthrown by a small amount of educational force; this is the second layer of reasoning. Now the third layer of reasoning. Ideals are certainly important, but reality is especially important. If we use peaceful methods to achieve the goal of communism, when will we succeed? If it takes a hundred years, how shall we deal with the proletariat writhing and groaning throughout these hundred years? (That is, we ourselves.) The proletariat is truly many times more numerous than the propertied class. Assuming the proletariat constitutes two-thirds, then among the 1.5 billion humans there are 1 billion proletarians (I fear the number is even greater). During these hundred years, allowing them to be trampled upon by the one-third capitalists—how can this be endured? Moreover, the proletariat has already awakened to the fact that they should have property, and that their present suffering without property is unjust. The demand for communism arising from the distress of having no property has already become a fact. Facts are present realities; they cannot be eliminated; once known, they must be acted upon. Therefore, I feel that the Russian revolution and the daily increasing numbers and tightening organization of radical Communist Parties in various countries are simply natural results. The above is the third layer of reasoning. There is yet another layer: my doubts about anarchism. My reasoning, however, does not lie solely in the impossibility of a society without coercive power and organization.

[1] Duan Qirui (1865–1936), a native of Hefei, Anhui, a Beiyang warlord. He served as Premier of the Beiyang government several times and controlled the Beijing government for a period.

[2] Zhang Taiyan (1869–1936), a native of Yuhang, Zhejiang, a modern Chinese democratic revolutionary and scholar. In his later years he devoted himself to teaching and writing.

I only worry that once such a social state is realized, it will be difficult to sustain it to the end. Because this social state is bound to cause a decrease in the human death rate and an increase in the birth rate, its outcome will inevitably lead to overpopulation. Unless we can achieve (1) not eating, (2) not wearing clothes, (3) not living in houses, (4) uniform climate and soil fertility everywhere on earth, or (5) invent boundless new lands habitable for people, we will ultimately be unable to escape the great difficulty of overpopulation. For all the above layers of reasoning, regarding absolute liberalism, anarchism, and democracy[1], according to my present view, I consider them all only pleasant to the ear in theory, but in fact unachievable. Therefore, I do not express agreement with the propositions of Brothers Zisheng and Hesheng. And regarding Hesen’s proposition, I express profound approval.

(3) The question of attitude. This is divided into the attitude of the society and the attitude of the society friends. Regarding the society’s attitude, I believe the first is “latency.” This was discussed at the Bansongyuan in Shanghai[2] and has now been approved by the society friends in France; it can be considered settled. The second is “not relying on old forces.” Our society is new, it is creative, and must absolutely not permit old forces to infiltrate. This point requires everyone’s attention. As for the mutual attitude among society friends and the individual attitude of society friends, I believe the first is “mutual assistance and mutual encouragement” (mutual assistance, such as assistance in emergencies, in learning, in undertakings. Mutual encouragement, such as actively encouraging toward goodness, passively encouraging away from evil). The second is sincerity (not slickness). The third is openness (openness of character). The fourth is upward striving (able to change one’s temperament, possessing an upward-striving heart). The first is what should exist “mutually.” The second, third, and fourth are what “individuals” should possess. The above two items for the society’s attitude and four items for the attitude of society friends embody the spirit of the society and its friends, and are extremely important.

[1] Demokelaxi is a transliteration of the English word “democracy.”

[2] In May 1920, Mao Zedong and other Xinmin Society members held a meeting at Bansongyuan in Shanghai to bid farewell to society friends departing for the work-study program in France. The meeting proposed that the Xinmin Society should adopt an attitude of “latency and practicality, not seeking vanity, not seeking the limelight.”

(4) The question of pursuing learning. I extremely approve of the two methods of common study and specialized study by field. You all, feeling the inconvenience of being scattered, plan to live together in one place, working while having opportunities to assemble, and frequently holding common study meetings—this is excellent. The society friends in Changsha are already in one place; your methods must be imitated here. As for the method of specialized study by field, taking doctrines as the guiding principle and books and newspapers as the items, reading separately and exchanging with one another—no method could be better. In my opinion, wherever there are two members, they should organize in this way. Zisheng cited the necessity of mechanics, saying that our common knowledge is still insufficient, that among our comrades there are as yet no specialists in scholarly research, and that China currently has no scholars worth counting—truly, this is not wrong! Progress in thought is the foundation for progress in life and undertakings. The only method to achieve progress in thought is to study and research learning. I am very uneasy about my own neglect of learning, and in the future I must follow your methods and exert myself in the pursuit of learning.

(5) The question of carrying out the society’s affairs. On this section, Zisheng and Hesen have the most opinions. I approve of all eighteen items in Zisheng’s “My Views on the Society.” Among them, the three items under “Fundamental Plan”—“determining the guiding principle for carrying out the society’s affairs,” “preparing personnel,” and “preparing finances”—are particularly insightful. Regarding taking the period before the 25th year of the Republic as a purely preparatory period, I believe it should be extended by five years, making the period before the 30th year of the Republic the purely preparatory period. Among the items Zisheng listed for the Changsha area, “summarizing the outline of the society’s affairs and firmly establishing the foundation,” “planning and running primary schools,” and “seeking out basic members” are the three most important. In addition, one item should be added: “founding several valuable new undertakings.” Among the overseas departments Zisheng listed, France, Russia, and the South Seas are the three most important. In my opinion, the society’s movements can temporarily be summarized as four: 1. the Hunan movement, 2. the South Seas movement, 3. the movement of studying in France, 4. the movement of studying in Russia. For the time being, we need not seek breadth; taking the development of these four and making them truly effective as our aim is relatively clear and tangible. What do you all think? As for the various matters Hesen wants me to carry out—“primary education,” “labor education,” “cooperative movement,” “pamphlets,” “relatives living together,” “assisting various organizations”—I am all willing to carry them out. Only the item “affixing postage stamps” I do not understand the meaning of; please explain further. Now that the Cultural Bookstore[1] has been established, its foundation can be expected to be stable, and its business can be expected to develop. There is now a plan to set up a branch in each county, to be accomplished within two years. If accomplished, the effect will certainly not be small.

(6) The question of comrade liaison. This item is extremely critical. I believe that we seventy-odd members must, with the utmost sincerity and earnestness, liaise at all times in all directions with comrades close to each notable person, so as to join hands and advance together on the path of world transformation. Regardless of male, female, old, young, scholar, farmer, worker, merchant—as long as their intention is sincere, their character open, their thought upward-striving, and they can benefit from mutual assistance and mutual encouragement, none cannot be liaised with and bound as kindred hearts. This section is discussed in detail in Hesen’s letter, and Zisheng also mentioned it. I believe that creating a special environment and the great enterprise of transforming China and the world absolutely cannot be monopolized by a small number of people. I hope that our seventy-odd people will each pay attention to this.

I have roughly finished stating my opinions. I hear that Zisheng has returned to China and is in Beijing; we can talk face to face soon. I ask all friends in France to further criticize my opinions, in order to seek a common decision. It would be a great fortune for the individual, and a great fortune for the society.

Your younger brother, Zedong

December 1, Year 9, at the Cultural Bookstore, 12 o’clock at night